A FIR cannot be quashed if a prima facie case is made out from its bare reading.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4444/2018

1.

Kishan Ladha S/o Ramesh Ladha, Aged About 23 Years,

B/c Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police

Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

2.

Ramesh Ladha S/o Mathura Lal Ladha, Aged About 53

Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh,

Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

3.

Pushpa Devi W/o Ramesh Ladha, Aged About 50 Years,

B/c Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police

Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

4.

Annu Ladha D/o Ramesh Ladha, Aged About 21 Years, B/c

Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police Station

Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2.

Staya Narain Sharma S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma,

Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police Station, District Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioners

:

Mr. Mridul Jain

For Respondent No.1

:

Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

For Respondent No.2

:

Mr. Rakesh Arora

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

04/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR

No.243 dated 13.10.2018 of Police Station Mandalgarh, District

Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 379,

120-B IPC.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-4444/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

daughter of the complainant-respondent No.2 solemnized

marriage with the petitioner no.1 as per her own free will. It is

further submitted that the daughter of complainant-respondent

No.2 is major and has not been abducted by the petitioners as

alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners

has also submitted that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are

living in the same area as neighbors and the petitioner No.1 and

the daughter of the complainant-respondent No.2 were in

relationship from long time but as they solemnized marriage

against the will of the complainant-respondent No.2 and his family

members, this false FIR has been lodged. It is also submitted that

though in the impugned FIR it is stated that the alleged incident

took place on 11.10.2018 but the complaint was lodged on

13.10.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore,

submitted that the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently

opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners and

submitted that from bare reading of the impugned FIR, it is clear

that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under

Sections 366, 379 and 120-B IPC, therefore, no case for quashing

the impugned FIR is made out.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s.

Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan

Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-4444/2018]

reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 and in later decisions has held

that if from bare reading of the FIR, prima facie case is made out,

then FIR cannot be quashed.

Here in this case, from bare reading of the impugned FIR, it

is clear that prima facie case is made out, therefore, no case for

quashing the FIR is made out.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

1-Arun/-